The vision is an optimistic one - I just don't see it as realistic. The sides have talked many times. Israel believed that Hamas was interested in peace, let Gazans work in Israel... and Oct 7 happened, aided by information on Israeli towns gathered by those workers.
You've heard the saying, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Why in the world should Israel trust the Palestinians at this point, after decades of attempts to destroy them?
And the "ordinary Gazans" have shown themselves to be of largely the same mindset. Many of them held hostages themselves, and many of them cheered Hamas's actions. Now, as those actions are backfiring on them, they are protesting, but when they thought they would gain, they applauded them. There is no reason to believe, after decades of PLO and UNRWA brainwashing, that they actually believe that Israel has a right to exist. Israel would be foolish to hope that peace talks would change anything. At the very least, it would take decades of deprogramming, with Israel in charge - and I don't see the world allowing that.
I think what's needed is gradually change of incentives. What each side could do:
Israel: pull out of deep settlements (the ones behind the fence) unilaterally, while maintaining security control in the WB to avoid Hamas rising there. Don't let Hamas keep ruling Gaza, but be more proactive about helping to set up alternative civilian control (and yes, that civilian control will still be bad people who suck and will require Israel keeping the ability to have some security control to avoid Hamas resurgence). Declare acceptance of some plan to gradually transfer full control to the PA, and tie it explicitly to reduced terrorism (conversely, stop tolerating occasional rockets as "oh that's just Gazans being Gazans").
Fatah/PA: declare some explicit goal with plausible borders (maybe the green line, but give up the whole "we'll never give a millimeter of British mandate territory or acknowledge Israel" shtick. Give up wild demands you'll never get (like "right of return"). Call out Hamas terrorism as counterproductive even if you can't call it evil (in Abbas's defense, he's done this one). Have some plan for a sustainable economy that doesn't rely on foreign aid.
Gazans: kick out Hamas. Try to form an alternative government (yes this is very hard and requires hard coordination). Things aren't getting better until Hamas is gone.
International community: stop seeing the conflict in "Palestinian cause" terms. The land is not more sacred than the people, and when you enable it you empower Hamas. In particular, stop treating "allowing Palestinians who want to leave gaza to do so" and "setting up humanitarian aid that doesn't go through hamas" as anti-palestinian.
I won't tell you what side to pick, but if you are going to oppose Israel, pick a resolution that would actually help or a concrete ask and go for that instead of just going "boo Israel" like the recent french/British/Canadian thing. Stop setting financial incentives to double down on refugee identification and exporting misery (in particular, defund unrwa). Move humanitarian support for Palestinians to some group that would actually want it solved (maybe UNICEF?) so that it can have more funding for other priorities.
(If you're going to support Israel, you can also do it in a way that gives political cover for Israel to make hard compromises - e.g. "we'll support you against Iran if you crack down on settlements that are already illegal under Israeli law").
What I'm going for is what each side could do unilaterally. I don't think more talking can help much, but each person involved can do something to make things better unilaterally, even if they can't solve things.
At least half of the gaza population declared they would prefer to leave the strip voluntarily. Question really is why the west denies them this privilege? What are the TRUE and REAL motivations of the west to surround the only jewish state with genocidal enemies? Let's first start talking about this hidden agenda before looking for compromises. The so-called free world needs to compromise as they are heavily invested in the conflict.
Hilarious. Ignorant and eager to fight to the last Palestinian and Israeli--from safely over the horizon of course. God protect the Palestinians from Western poseur assholes like @Kieran Howton.
One observation is that supporting a “peace process” for, say, a two-state solution is completely dead as a political position; it’s a gauzy abstract aspiration, like wanting world peace. The burden falls on those who still support that approach, myself included, to state what specific policies or position changes should be made by the relevant players to get there.
Let’s start with the two biggies:
Right-of-return and Jerusalem
From a Palestinian diaspora perspective, what is your response to the prominent Einat Wulf position (defined as an extreme skepticism of Palestinian Right-of-Return, she holds that Palestinians must abandon any claims to it as a prerequisite for political negotiations to ever happen.) Do you really think 2+ million Palestinian refugees in the diaspora have a reasonable expectation to get repatriated inside green-line Israel in any political agreement? Or do you think “right-of-return” is really about something else, maybe their historical narrative of suffering in the Nakba and a need for acknowledgement and recompense? That is to say, may be there are creative measures to be taken that would not threaten a durable Jewish majority in Israel?
Also, what of Jerusalem? One observation about the Palestinian side is that the Al Aqsa compound / haram al sharif has been the absolute polestar of their national identity for over 100 years. No path to Palestinian sovereignty over Al Aqsa, no path to a mutually-agreeable political settlement with the Israelis. But the Israelis are not going to give up the Temple Mount. What are your thoughts on that?
Talking to one-another is clearly counterproductive. It violently irritates the Muslims without diminishing their hatred for Jews. As to the Jews, the more talk, the better they understand how implacably Muslims hate them; curiously, not to say masochistically, some Jews are not irritated by this. But both groups are made less likely to live peaceably with the other.
I remember hearing someone propose a shrinking of the conflict as opposed to a giant resolution being crafted and agreed to in a day. In this scenario, each side would make gradual concessions over time until an agreeable solution is eventually reached. Ideally, the conflict would be ended as quickly as possible, but giant peace talks between the two sides have not seen much success, so this might be the next best thing.
The vision is an optimistic one - I just don't see it as realistic. The sides have talked many times. Israel believed that Hamas was interested in peace, let Gazans work in Israel... and Oct 7 happened, aided by information on Israeli towns gathered by those workers.
You've heard the saying, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Why in the world should Israel trust the Palestinians at this point, after decades of attempts to destroy them?
And the "ordinary Gazans" have shown themselves to be of largely the same mindset. Many of them held hostages themselves, and many of them cheered Hamas's actions. Now, as those actions are backfiring on them, they are protesting, but when they thought they would gain, they applauded them. There is no reason to believe, after decades of PLO and UNRWA brainwashing, that they actually believe that Israel has a right to exist. Israel would be foolish to hope that peace talks would change anything. At the very least, it would take decades of deprogramming, with Israel in charge - and I don't see the world allowing that.
Melanie Phillips has laid out the case: https://substack.com/home/post/p-160562210?source=queue
It's optimistic because Israel has only ever been interested in murder and theft
That’s why they keep offering land and peace to their neighbors. Read some history, would you?
There’s an organization called A Land For All that proposes a solution that seems to meet the conditions you espouse.
https://www.alandforall.org/english/?d=ltr
I think what's needed is gradually change of incentives. What each side could do:
Israel: pull out of deep settlements (the ones behind the fence) unilaterally, while maintaining security control in the WB to avoid Hamas rising there. Don't let Hamas keep ruling Gaza, but be more proactive about helping to set up alternative civilian control (and yes, that civilian control will still be bad people who suck and will require Israel keeping the ability to have some security control to avoid Hamas resurgence). Declare acceptance of some plan to gradually transfer full control to the PA, and tie it explicitly to reduced terrorism (conversely, stop tolerating occasional rockets as "oh that's just Gazans being Gazans").
Fatah/PA: declare some explicit goal with plausible borders (maybe the green line, but give up the whole "we'll never give a millimeter of British mandate territory or acknowledge Israel" shtick. Give up wild demands you'll never get (like "right of return"). Call out Hamas terrorism as counterproductive even if you can't call it evil (in Abbas's defense, he's done this one). Have some plan for a sustainable economy that doesn't rely on foreign aid.
Gazans: kick out Hamas. Try to form an alternative government (yes this is very hard and requires hard coordination). Things aren't getting better until Hamas is gone.
International community: stop seeing the conflict in "Palestinian cause" terms. The land is not more sacred than the people, and when you enable it you empower Hamas. In particular, stop treating "allowing Palestinians who want to leave gaza to do so" and "setting up humanitarian aid that doesn't go through hamas" as anti-palestinian.
I won't tell you what side to pick, but if you are going to oppose Israel, pick a resolution that would actually help or a concrete ask and go for that instead of just going "boo Israel" like the recent french/British/Canadian thing. Stop setting financial incentives to double down on refugee identification and exporting misery (in particular, defund unrwa). Move humanitarian support for Palestinians to some group that would actually want it solved (maybe UNICEF?) so that it can have more funding for other priorities.
(If you're going to support Israel, you can also do it in a way that gives political cover for Israel to make hard compromises - e.g. "we'll support you against Iran if you crack down on settlements that are already illegal under Israeli law").
What I'm going for is what each side could do unilaterally. I don't think more talking can help much, but each person involved can do something to make things better unilaterally, even if they can't solve things.
At least half of the gaza population declared they would prefer to leave the strip voluntarily. Question really is why the west denies them this privilege? What are the TRUE and REAL motivations of the west to surround the only jewish state with genocidal enemies? Let's first start talking about this hidden agenda before looking for compromises. The so-called free world needs to compromise as they are heavily invested in the conflict.
Unleash Israel.
Quite simple, Israel should just stop being. A genocidal warmongering pos, and stop stealing land.
Hilarious. Ignorant and eager to fight to the last Palestinian and Israeli--from safely over the horizon of course. God protect the Palestinians from Western poseur assholes like @Kieran Howton.
Mr. Aziz:
One observation is that supporting a “peace process” for, say, a two-state solution is completely dead as a political position; it’s a gauzy abstract aspiration, like wanting world peace. The burden falls on those who still support that approach, myself included, to state what specific policies or position changes should be made by the relevant players to get there.
Let’s start with the two biggies:
Right-of-return and Jerusalem
From a Palestinian diaspora perspective, what is your response to the prominent Einat Wulf position (defined as an extreme skepticism of Palestinian Right-of-Return, she holds that Palestinians must abandon any claims to it as a prerequisite for political negotiations to ever happen.) Do you really think 2+ million Palestinian refugees in the diaspora have a reasonable expectation to get repatriated inside green-line Israel in any political agreement? Or do you think “right-of-return” is really about something else, maybe their historical narrative of suffering in the Nakba and a need for acknowledgement and recompense? That is to say, may be there are creative measures to be taken that would not threaten a durable Jewish majority in Israel?
Also, what of Jerusalem? One observation about the Palestinian side is that the Al Aqsa compound / haram al sharif has been the absolute polestar of their national identity for over 100 years. No path to Palestinian sovereignty over Al Aqsa, no path to a mutually-agreeable political settlement with the Israelis. But the Israelis are not going to give up the Temple Mount. What are your thoughts on that?
Talking to one-another is clearly counterproductive. It violently irritates the Muslims without diminishing their hatred for Jews. As to the Jews, the more talk, the better they understand how implacably Muslims hate them; curiously, not to say masochistically, some Jews are not irritated by this. But both groups are made less likely to live peaceably with the other.
Hebraization
Incentives to convince Palestinians to do this?
Prestige, money, and truth
I remember hearing someone propose a shrinking of the conflict as opposed to a giant resolution being crafted and agreed to in a day. In this scenario, each side would make gradual concessions over time until an agreeable solution is eventually reached. Ideally, the conflict would be ended as quickly as possible, but giant peace talks between the two sides have not seen much success, so this might be the next best thing.